Title text: We were going to do a falling-apart Rubik's cube that was just 27 independent blocks stuck together with magnets, but then we realized it was actually really cool and even kind of worked, so we cut that one.

Now I want one of those magnet Rubik's cubes. Thus their non-existence makes them fall in line with the others.

I'm not sure whether a simple set of 27 cubes would work - a lot of the magic of a Rubik's Cube is in the action of scrambling it, which is lost if you have to be careful to keep it together and simulate the constraints the Rubik's Cube enforces automatically.

On the other hand, if there's a way to get a Rubik's Cube with an easier reset than finding someone who knows how to solve one, that would add some value (though lose bragging rights for having a solved one around)

rmsgrey wrote:I'm not sure whether a simple set of 27 cubes would work - a lot of the magic of a Rubik's Cube is in the action of scrambling it, which is lost if you have to be careful to keep it together and simulate the constraints the Rubik's Cube enforces automatically.

On the other hand, if there's a way to get a Rubik's Cube with an easier reset than finding someone who knows how to solve one, that would add some value (though lose bragging rights for having a solved one around)

Those Rubik’s cubes do exist — my friend has one (though instead of colors, the sides are numbers on dice). You just have to be careful when scrambling it and solving it, but it works great!

Oh hehehe, I was completely oblivious that I repeated the joke. While reading Weeks' reply, I was fully in the mindset of "children's toys", for whom dildos are just useless* toys, making it a far more innocent joke.

*well, you can always play catch with them, or, if it's one with a suction cup, throwing it against a smooth wall, or use it as a prop in make believe.

Oh hehehe, I was completely oblivious that I repeated the joke. While reading Weeks' reply, I was fully in the mindset of "children's toys", for whom dildos are just useless* toys, making it a far more innocent joke. :oops:

*well, you can always play catch with them, or, if it's one with a suction cup, throwing it against a smooth wall, or use it as a prop in make believe.

TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity

suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.

Archgeek wrote:TIL: There exist dildos either intended for consumption or least non-toxic that are made of a material of sufficiently low density that it can be bitten through and in some manner consumed.

you pinged five people for a half-assed joke

You make me proud

TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity

suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.

rmsgrey wrote:I'm not sure whether a simple set of 27 cubes would work - a lot of the magic of a Rubik's Cube is in the action of scrambling it, which is lost if you have to be careful to keep it together and simulate the constraints the Rubik's Cube enforces automatically.

On the other hand, if there's a way to get a Rubik's Cube with an easier reset than finding someone who knows how to solve one, that would add some value (though lose bragging rights for having a solved one around)

Those Rubik’s cubes do exist — my friend has one (though instead of colors, the sides are numbers on dice). You just have to be careful when scrambling it and solving it, but it works great!

Not the best picture but here you go.

I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

my uncle once received a very cheap Rubik's cube.He started playing with it.When he continued rotating it, it was getting harder and harder to move.He started ratating in the opposite direction.Suddenly it fell apart.

Because, (as he then could see) the cube was held together by six screws.Rotating clockwise tightened the screws and anticlockwise loosened them.

Flumble wrote:Oh hehehe, I was completely oblivious that I repeated the joke. While reading Weeks' reply, I was fully in the mindset of "children's toys", for whom dildos are just useless* toys, making it a far more innocent joke.

*well, you can always play catch with them, or, if it's one with a suction cup, throwing it against a smooth wall, or use it as a prop in make believe.

Please don't Picard my entire message! It makes me very uneasy because I can't tell if I just made an ass out of myself or evoked the intended response. It leaves me, dare I say, unfulfilled.

rmsgrey wrote:I'm not sure whether a simple set of 27 cubes would work - a lot of the magic of a Rubik's Cube is in the action of scrambling it, which is lost if you have to be careful to keep it together and simulate the constraints the Rubik's Cube enforces automatically.

On the other hand, if there's a way to get a Rubik's Cube with an easier reset than finding someone who knows how to solve one, that would add some value (though lose bragging rights for having a solved one around)

Those Rubik’s cubes do exist — my friend has one (though instead of colors, the sides are numbers on dice). You just have to be careful when scrambling it and solving it, but it works great!

The having to be careful is my point there - it makes it fiddly rather than fun.

The (Rubik's-esque, but not licenced under that name) Tetrahedron was the most falling-apartingly iteration, from all the various ones I've had.

Also, given it has nine triangles per side, the three non-corner, non-edge triangles were the "centre" pieces (mechanically), the three corners of each side were just free-wheeling tetrahedra standing out from the last three with no complex freedom of movement other than being 0, 1 or 2/3rds out of alignment, a simple and disconnected twist away from the One True Position at whim. The three edge-pieces were the "transportable" pieces that could/could not agree with the rotations of the rest as you shuffled them around the middle hexagons, and the tolerances of the "gripped by the spinny bits" mouldings were such that they easily popped out. Whether because you wanted to cheat-dis/reassemble or just because you weren't carefully whilst twisting the main axes around.

The cup and ball with ball slightly too large to fit in the cup.The Jacob's ladder where the blocks are only held by a single ribbon down the middle.The half-a-hula-hoop.The three foot long skipping rope.The all spherical building blocks.The all cuboid marbles.The velcro mitts/pads and ball set, with all velcro surfaces having just the velvet part.

I have to say I'm surprised by the lack of overlap between these forums and cubers. Here's a review of a reasonable-quality magnetic cube - the 3x3 works better than you'd think. There's also a longer Mathologer vid that goes into more detail and has an interview with the guy who makes them.

Cubes with more normal mechanisms, but magnets to help them click into alignment, are a recent trend.

Edit: aren't group theorists required by law and custom to have a cube on their desks at all times?

I have to say I'm surprised by the lack of overlap between these forums and cubers. Here's a review of a reasonable-quality magnetic cube - the 3x3 works better than you'd think. There's also a longer Mathologer vid that goes into more detail and has an interview with the guy who makes them.

Cubes with more normal mechanisms, but magnets to help them click into alignment, are a recent trend.

Edit: aren't group theorists required by law and custom to have a cube on their desks at all times?

That reasonable-quality one is what my friend (who is a cuber) has. It’s not like it falls apart, but you do have to be more careful with it than a regular cube. Plus, turning it isn’t entirely smooth because of the way the magnets are. And I hate the parity that pops up in the centers (but that applies for lots of 3x3 cubes). It’s a neat cube, but it’s certainly not my favorite.

You want fiddly? My brother has a Rubik's Cube he made out of paper! It's fully functional, but very delicate. Not completely unfulfilling, but definitely a case of being more fun to make than to use. (Or so he assures me.)

"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

Showsni wrote:The cup and ball with ball slightly too large to fit in the cup.The Jacob's ladder where the blocks are only held by a single ribbon down the middle.The half-a-hula-hoop.The three foot long skipping rope.The all spherical building blocks.The all cuboid marbles.The velcro mitts/pads and ball set, with all velcro surfaces having just the velvet part.

The cup and ball are just a more challenging type, where you have to keep the ball balanced on the opening of the cup through the catching motion.

The three foot long skipping rope is intended for young kids.

The spherical building blocks and the cuboid marbles are simply misnamed. The proper names are "croquet balls" and "dice" respectively.

keldor wrote:The spherical building blocks and the cuboid marbles are simply misnamed. The proper names are "croquet balls" and "dice" respectively.

Somewhere around here I've got a set of spherical dice. There's some kind of cubical weight inside, in a cavity slightly larger than the cube, so it stops rolling with one of six regions of the spherical surface upwards.

xtifr wrote:You want fiddly? My brother has a Rubik's Cube he made out of paper! It's fully functional, but very delicate. Not completely unfulfilling, but definitely a case of being more fun to make than to use. (Or so he assures me.)

You want even more fiddly? Someone a while back on the Kerbal Space Program forums made a working cube out of stock parts.I think it has some collider abuse for a bearing and a lot of docking ports.

"That big tube down the side was officially called a "systems tunnel", which is aerospace contractor speak for "big tube down the side."

da Doctah wrote:Somewhere around here I've got a set of spherical dice. There's some kind of cubical weight inside, in a cavity slightly larger than the cube, so it stops rolling with one of six regions of the spherical surface upwards.

I had a pair of those that broke.

The inside has plastic ridges dividing it into six zones, and a small ball bearing to pick one of those buckets and hold the die in place once it stops rolling fast enough to dump the bearing into the next bucket over and over again.

Long-time reader, new forum user. I've been forced to create an account in these forums in order to take issue with the alt text of this comic. There are not "27 independent blocks" in a Rubik's cube. That is all.

Grimer11 wrote:Long-time reader, new forum user. I've been forced to create an account in these forums in order to take issue with the alt text of this comic. There are not "27 independent blocks" in a Rubik's cube. That is all.

that is true, but nobody had claimed there were. in fact, the alt text explicitly says they didn't make it.

Grimer11 wrote:Long-time reader, new forum user. I've been forced to create an account in these forums in order to take issue with the alt text of this comic. There are not "27 independent blocks" in a Rubik's cube. That is all.

that is true, but nobody had claimed there were. in fact, the alt text explicitly says they didn't make it.

I understand that but it's a (very common!) failure in logic to think there are 27 blocks on a Rubik's cube and the alt-text clearly infers this. Had the author intended an arbitrary number of blocks (as you claim) he wouldn't have used the oft-incorrectly guessed number of blocks on a Rubik's cube, he would have instead used a seemingly random number like 20 or 30.